Clarification of a "rule"?

[MtB]

 

No you haven't missed much but you know what they say...

 

No news is...well...no news.

 

 

I don't think there will be any news. As time goes by it will gradually sink in the new policy is the hard management style. Posts deemed unsuitable will be deleted, and questions about why will also be deleted.

 

Same applies to members deemed unsuitable.

The appearance of an orderly house will be the result.

[Wanted]

Cheers LM for your brilliant modding, also whilst I'm at it, all that you do for boaters in and around London (and beyond) as well.

 

 

Enjoy some time and space.

 

Rob

[Ange]

Ldy Muck was always very loyal and having to peddle the 'corporate line' Dan has adopted with which I suspect she strongly disagreed (i.e. shut up and do as I say) eventually led her to resign. Just my opinion though.

You are incorrect in your speculation Mike.

 

I know this for a fact - Lady M's resignation is exactly due to the reasons she explained in her post.

 

You clearly don't know Lady M - she would never stand by decisions that she felt were wrong because of a misguided sense of loyalty. Never. Her integrity would never allow that.

 

She's a massive loss to the forum but I understand totally her reasons for walking away and wish her all the best and thank her for all the work she's put in over the years.

 

Edited to correct mistooks

[patty-ann]

 

 

I don't think there will be any news. As time goes by it will gradually sink in the new policy is the hard management style. Posts deemed unsuitable will be deleted, and questions about why will also be deleted.

 

Same applies to members deemed unsuitable.

The appearance of an orderly house will be the result.

Sadly this probably accurate summing up..have a green thingy

[Geo]

People's feelings about swearing, bullying etc are different it depends of their background etc. I believe that Daniel's aim is to make the site a good place for everyone and that the standards are those in which will allow everyone to feel comfortable.

 

To me that means no swearing, no bullying etc, not denigrating a person, not being condescending etc.

 

If you have to attack the person call them stupid or similar it is wrong. Attack the content, post what you think is correct if you think they have posted something that is factually incorrect or you believe in a different point of discussion.

 

That way people who are what I believe some have called 'fluffy' will be comfortable. I suspect while they may not be as vocal as those that like to swear, bully, denigrate others etc they are actually in the majority.

 

Maybe if it would not be acceptable language in the civil courts of the land it should not be acceptable here.

 

Remember that someone who is meek or mild may not enter a discussion which is aggressive but they could have something valuable to say. So we should make the ethos one where they feel comfortable entering the discussion.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Geo

[Phil Ambrose]

 

 

I don't think there will be any news. As time goes by it will gradually sink in the new policy is the hard management style. Posts deemed unsuitable will be deleted, and questions about why will also be deleted.

 

Same applies to members deemed unsuitable.

 

The appearance of an orderly house will be the result.

But would the appearance of an orderly house make it a happy house?

Phil

[Alan de Enfield]

But would the appearance of an orderly house make it a happy house?

Phil

 

Apparently one way of telling that a company is in 'trouble' (or for sale) is to view the toilets.

If they have been recently painted then 'there is trouble ahead' (or you can buy the business)

 

Painting over all of the grime makes things look a lot better than they really are.

[MtB]

On reflection I should have said:

 

"The illusion of an orderly house will be the result."

 

I used the word 'appearance' to indicate an apparently orderly house, not orderly under the surface.

 

I also meant to say the other effect of the 'hard management' style Dan has adopted will be a draining away of financial contribution to CWF from the members.

I've cancelled my own monthly direct debit as I disagree with the direction Dan is taking this place, and I suspect quite a few others here will have done the same if not already.

 

Dan will end up paying for this place himself again I predict, as more and more paying members feel disenfranchised like me.

 

I started a rather successful fundraising thread here a year or two ago which in the light of current management pronouncements I now rather regret.

[Geo]

On reflection I should have said:

 

"The illusion of an orderly house will be the result."

 

I used the word 'appearance' to indicate an apparently orderly house, not orderly under the surface.

 

I also meant to say the other effect of the 'hard management' style Dan has adopted will be a draining away of financial contribution to CWF from the members.

I've cancelled my own monthly direct debit as I disagree with the direction Dan is taking this place, and I suspect quite a few others here will have done the same if not already.

 

Dan will end up paying for this place himself again I predict, as more and more paying members feel disenfranchised like me.

 

I started a rather successful fundraising thread here a year or two ago which in the light of current management pronouncements I now rather regret.

 

If you feel that way maybe you should be asking the Admin to delete that thread as a way of disassociating yourself

Edited October 29, 2016 by Geo

[Mac of Cygnet]

People's feelings about swearing, bullying etc are different it depends of their background etc. I believe that Daniel's aim is to make the site a good place for everyone and that the standards are those in which will allow everyone to feel comfortable.

 

To me that means no swearing, no bullying etc, not denigrating a person, not being condescending etc.

 

If you have to attack the person call them stupid or similar it is wrong. Attack the content, post what you think is correct if you think they have posted something that is factually incorrect or you believe in a different point of discussion.

 

That way people who are what I believe some have called 'fluffy' will be comfortable. I suspect while they may not be as vocal as those that like to swear, bully, denigrate others etc they are actually in the majority.

 

Maybe if it would not be acceptable language in the civil courts of the land it should not be acceptable here.

 

Remember that someone who is meek or mild may not enter a discussion which is aggressive but they could have something valuable to say. So we should make the one where they feel comfortable entering the discussion.

Perhaps someone has been listening to the 'Sermon on the Mount'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:5

 

OMG!!! I forgot about the ban on religion!!!

[Sea Dog]

Perhaps someone has been listening to the 'Sermon on the Mount'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:5

 

OMG!!! I forgot about the ban on religion!!!

If that's the one about blessed are the cheesemakers, it's not meant to be taken literally and refers to all purveyors of dairy products. I doubt that qualifies as religion - more likely gastronomy.

[Barry]

Well yes

 

Cheese is a wonderful thing so "blessed be the cheesemakers" is exactly right

[twbm]

At the moment, there are 14 open reports about issues on the forum.

 

10 of them are about how people are discussing this issue. It is very often not civilised discussion, and is taking up the vast majority of time.

 

1 is about Carl's positive and welcomed suggestion- discussions at the moment are around how it could be made to work technically.

 

2 are about how we can use what people are saying to improve the forum.

 

There are also similar numbers of PM threads. One discussing making the forum rules and guidelines much clearer, and two discussing how to improve moderation going forwards, with a code of conduct amongst other things.

 

But there's also 6 open PM threads about the process, and how discussion is being kept on track.

 

At the moment, we're having to spend longer guiding the discussion of changes and explaining what we are doing than we are actually making the changes.

 

Frankly, the more calls there are for, "action this day!" and the more picking apart of individual moderators and their decisions that goes on, all based entirely on unfounded speculation at worst and one side of the story at best, the more and more delayed these changes are getting.

 

Typical example- I've now run out of time now to look through an updated copy of the rules and guidelines and have to go to work, because I've spent the time reading this thread and replying to your comments, to keep this transparent.

 

A bit late to come back to this maybe, but asking for sympathy dealing with self inflicted problems isn't going to get much traction.

 

Looking at your list, you've got:

 

10 messages and some PM's telling you stuff you already know which should qualify for a short polite cut and paste acknowledgement which includes a recognition that a more personalised answer would be better but is beyond the capacity of the Mods. Sorted.

3 apparently offering useful input. Focus on them.

6 pm's discussing process - having worked in central government it sounds familiar: the process is everything, the product a complete accident. Should be secondary.

 

Pick 5 people, mods and others who have made proactively sensible suggestions, including some who will challenge you. Give then a week to revise Moderation. Get them together on Skype / Hangouts / whatever. Establish the rules of engagement on the call - no over-talking, no insults, stop speaking after 1 minute then resume if the chair allows it, majority vote wins. Accept compromise. Apply agreed and fully visible processes consistently. Review everything in 1 month, then 3, then 6.

 

Prerequisites - all hatchets buried outside the door, 'senior manager' prepared to accept and support outcome.

[mayalld]

 

A bit late to come back to this maybe, but asking for sympathy dealing with self inflicted problems isn't going to get much traction.

 

Looking at your list, you've got:

 

10 messages and some PM's telling you stuff you already know which should qualify for a short polite cut and paste acknowledgement which includes a recognition that a more personalised answer would be better but is beyond the capacity of the Mods. Sorted.

3 apparently offering useful input. Focus on them.

6 pm's discussing process - having worked in central government it sounds familiar: the process is everything, the product a complete accident. Should be secondary.

 

Pick 5 people, mods and others who have made proactively sensible suggestions, including some who will challenge you. Give then a week to revise Moderation. Get them together on Skype / Hangouts / whatever. Establish the rules of engagement on the call - no over-talking, no insults, stop speaking after 1 minute then resume if the chair allows it, majority vote wins. Accept compromise. Apply agreed and fully visible processes consistently. Review everything in 1 month, then 3, then 6.

 

Prerequisites - all hatchets buried outside the door, 'senior manager' prepared to accept and support outcome.

Spot on.

 

Can't see it happening. Can see the existing inner circle clinging to power for all they can

 

Prove me wrong!

[Jerra]

An undoubtedly unpopular comment coming up.

 

Reading this thread there are a lot of members who feel they know exactly how moderating should be done, but somehow aren't rushing to volunteer (with the honorable exception of Carlt of course).

[Alan de Enfield]

An undoubtedly unpopular comment coming up.

 

Reading this thread there are a lot of members who feel they know exactly how moderating should be done, but somehow aren't rushing to volunteer (with the honorable exception of Carlt of course).

 

Remember the last batch of volunteers - applied and never even got a 'sorry you have not been successful this time' letter.

 

If I remember correctly MtB was one of them.

[Jerra]

 

Remember the last batch of volunteers - applied and never even got a 'sorry you have not been successful this time' letter.

 

If I remember correctly MtB was one of them.

The fact remains that a person is unlikely to change anything by repeating the same points over and over in a thread which is what appears to be happening.

 

The forum seems short of staff by all accounts if a dozen (or more) moderators volunteered surely some would have to be accepted. Otherwise the suggestion that delays are due to overload of mods would ring more than a little hollow.

[Alan de Enfield]

The fact remains that a person is unlikely to change anything by repeating the same points over and over in a thread which is what appears to be happening.

 

The forum seems short of staff by all accounts if a dozen (or more) moderators volunteered surely some would have to be accepted. Otherwise the suggestion that delays are due to overload of mods would ring more than a little hollow.

 

Without wanting to put words into peoples mouths, I would suggest that under the existing management style, multitude of rules and inappropriate& inconsistent application of the rules few will volunteer.

 

I cannot imagine anyone volunteering if the forum continues to be run as it has been for the last 8 or 9 months.

 

If there is an acceptance of the 'need for change', and this is shown by a moderation of the language used, the issuing of a new set of rules agreed to by a plebiscite (replacing the rules already in existence - not adding to them), and an acceptance that some of the existing moderators positions may need reviewed, then I feel there would be more than sufficient volunteers who would feel as if they actually had a 'stake in the future of the forum'.

 

Wouldn't it be nice to see a new thread started - titled :

 

"the administration will hold a plebiscite for the approval of constitutional reforms"

Edited October 29, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Dave_P]

An undoubtedly unpopular comment coming up.

 

Reading this thread there are a lot of members who feel they know exactly how moderating should be done, but somehow aren't rushing to volunteer (with the honorable exception of Carlt of course).

How do you know?

[twbm]

An undoubtedly unpopular comment coming up.

 

Reading this thread there are a lot of members who feel they know exactly how moderating should be done, but somehow aren't rushing to volunteer (with the honorable exception of Carlt of course).

 

Not unpopular with me, but inaccurate.

[Barry]

Reading this thread there are a lot of members who feel they know exactly how moderating should be done, but somehow aren't rushing to volunteer (with the honorable exception of Carlt of course).

 

Truth in those words

[Guest]

An undoubtedly unpopular comment coming up.

 

Reading this thread there are a lot of members who feel they know exactly how moderating should be done, but somehow aren't rushing to volunteer (with the honorable exception of Carlt of course).

 

Then I would say you shouldn't just base that on what you see in the public part of the forum. I know of at least one person who has volunteered but who chose not to do it publicly. It was by mutual agreement that it wasn't pursued. There have also been instances of people who have volunteered but knocked back or not responded to I believe too.

 

Just sayin......

Edited October 29, 2016 by MJG

[mayalld]

An undoubtedly unpopular comment coming up.

 

Reading this thread there are a lot of members who feel they know exactly how moderating should be done, but somehow aren't rushing to volunteer (with the honorable exception of Carlt of course).

Just to nail my colours to the mast here.

 

I have previously offered to assist (in a technical capacity rather than as a mod, but techies do of course gain access to the moderator tools).

 

My offer was declined, and it was made clear that somebody with my profile wouldn't be accepted.

 

Dan is aware that the offer remains open if he chooses to ask me, but he hasn't asked.

[Chewbacka]

Just to nail my colours to the mast here.

 

I have previously offered to assist (in a technical capacity rather than as a mod, but techies do of course gain access to the moderator tools).

 

My offer was declined, and it was made clear that somebody with my profile wouldn't be accepted.

 

Dan is aware that the offer remains open if he chooses to ask me, but he hasn't asked.

Out of interest what is wrong with your profile????

[mayalld]

Out of interest what is wrong with your profile????

Not my profile as in what you see when you click on my name.

 

Rather more the fact that I maintain a high profile and have strong views that I am not afraid to express.

 

I can see that I am too controversial to be a mod, and that the last thing Dan wants is people on the team with too independent a viewpoint.